https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dd75498db79675a1a0b73c25e5f110969ee72d9d
commit r10-7764-gdd75498db79675a1a0b73c25e5f110969ee72d9d
Author: Peter Bergner
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(cannot_substitute_mem_equiv_p,
"A target hook which returns @code{true} if @var{subst} can't\n\
substitute safely pseudos with equivalent memory values during\n\
register allocation.\n\
I guess "ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #22 from Peter Bergner ---
To be more specific, I have implemented the hook cannot_substitute_mem_equiv_p
for rs6000 that rejects these and: altivec addresses. The nice thing about the
patch is that it only affects rs6000, whereas a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #21 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Have you managed to make some progress? This is one of the last 10 P1
> blockers of the release.
I'm still working on it. I have a patch that fixes the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Have you managed to make some progress? This is one of the last 10 P1 blockers
of the release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #19 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> Yes, we want to fix it, unless you want to revert the PR93658 change even
> for GCC 10 and reapply only to 11 once this bug is fixed too.
Ok, let me take anoth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, we want to fix it, unless you want to revert the PR93658 change even for
GCC 10 and reapply only to 11 once this bug is fixed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #17 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> Any progress?
I'm sorry, I've been swamped with other things. Even so, given this (up to now
latent) bug has been there a while, and any patch here will affec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Richard Sandiford said on this PR, probably lost due to sourceware migration:
Sorry for the slow reply, been a bit of a hectic week.
I think both fixes would be valid. Like you s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #15 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #14)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #13)
> > Sorry, I have no good knowledge of decompose_address. The original author
> > is Richard San
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> I'm CCing Vlad, since I need some guidance/help for some LRA questions.
>
> Vlad, do you have some guidance on what should be done when we see
> an address l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
16 matches
Mail list logo
